Introduction
The concept of doli incapax, a Latin term meaning "incapable of wrong," previously protected children aged 10 to 13 from criminal charges in England and Wales. This legal rule assumed children in this age group could not recognize that their actions were wrong. R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20 is a key judgment by the House of Lords, now the Supreme Court, that changed this area of criminal law. The ruling removed the automatic use of doli incapax, requiring prosecutors to present clear proof that the child knew their actions were seriously wrong. This changed how the law treats children in criminal matters.
The Background of Doli Incapax
Before 2009, the automatic use of doli incapax fully protected children aged 10 to 13. Prosecutors did not have to show the child understood their actions were wrong. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 suggested a modified version of doli incapax that could be disputed, which would involve proving the child knew their actions were wrong. However, this version was never implemented. The original rule stayed in place. Past cases like C v DPP [1995] 2 All ER 43 raised concerns about applying doli incapax in modern settings, especially as views on child development and criminal accountability changed.
The Facts and Legal Path of R v JTB
R v JTB involved two linked appeals about two 12-year-old boys, called JTB, accused of sexual offenses. The Crown Court used the existing doli incapax rule to drop the charges. The prosecution claimed the rule conflicted with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees fair trials. The Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution’s argument. The case then went to the House of Lords.
The House of Lords' Ruling
The House of Lords unanimously agreed with the prosecution and ended the automatic use of doli incapax. Lord Phillips, writing the main judgment, reviewed the rule’s history and called it outdated. He pointed to current knowledge about children’s mental growth, stating children today might understand more than in the past. The Lords also considered the rule’s effect on fair trials, deciding it could unfairly let children go free if they clearly knew their actions were wrong. The conflict between the rule and Article 6 ECHR strongly shaped the result.
Effects of the Decision
Ending the automatic use of doli incapax marked a significant change in English criminal law. It required prosecutors to show clear evidence that children aged 10-14 understood their actions were seriously wrong. This aligned the law more closely with international standards on children’s rights and criminal accountability. The ruling emphasized evaluating each child’s awareness individually, moving beyond assumptions based on age. This led to debates among legal professionals about how to prove a child’s understanding of wrongdoing and possible effects on children in the legal system.
Later Developments and Current Practice
After R v JTB, criminal responsibility for 10-14 year olds now depends on whether the child knew their actions were "seriously wrong," not just "naughty." Follow-up cases like R v CP [2018] EWCA Crim 614 confirmed that the test focuses on moral wrongdoing, not only legal knowledge. This requires evidence showing the child could distinguish right from wrong in the specific context. Prosecutors must provide proof that accounts for the child’s age, maturity, and other relevant factors.
Conclusion
The judgment in R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20 reshaped English criminal law regarding children. By abolishing the automatic use of doli incapax, the House of Lords acknowledged updated ideas about childhood and responsibility. The new method requires assessing each child’s understanding of their actions’ wrongfulness, with prosecutors tasked to prove this. The decision changed how children are treated in criminal cases, ensuring alignment with human rights standards and focusing on individual evaluations. The guidelines from R v JTB still inform legal practice, with later cases refining the "seriously wrong" test to prioritize the child’s actual knowledge of their actions.
